United States v. Miguel Gonzalez, No. 13-3472 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal case - Sentencing. Anders case. Defendant failed to demonstrate that he qualified for safety-valve relief and the district court lacked authority to sentence him below the statutory minimum.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3472 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Miguel Angel Hernandez Gonzalez, also known as Jose Encarnacno Gurule lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: May 30, 2014 Filed: June 3, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Miguel Angel Hernandez Gonzalez directly appeals the sentence that the district court imposed after he pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to 1 1 The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), arguing that the statutory-minimum prison sentence is unreasonable, and that the government unreasonably withheld its recommendation to grant Gonzalez relief from the statutory minimum under the safety valve. Upon careful review, and setting aside the issue of whether Gonzalez waived the argument by withdrawing his initial objection to the probation officer s recommendation against safety-valve relief, we conclude that Gonzalez failed to demonstrate that he qualified for the safety valve, see United States v. Aguilera, 625 F.3d 482, 488 (8th Cir. 2010), and that the district court lacked authority to sentence him below the statutory minimum, see United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003). Having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. As for counsel s motion to withdraw, we conclude that allowing counsel to withdraw at this time would not be consistent with the Eighth Circuit s 1994 Amendment to Part V of the Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964. We therefore deny counsel s motion to withdraw as premature, without prejudice to counsel refiling the motion upon fulfilling the duties set forth in the Amendment. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
